A U.S. ballistic missile defense system should, could, and would already be in place -- were it not for two decades of determined Democratic obstructionism.

For some reason, kowtowing to the Russians has long been a higher priority for Democratic Senators and Congressmen than protecting the lives and welfare of their constituents. These are the same Democratic politicians who so delight in citing "the children" as the primary motivation for all their government- building proposals. The truth is, if ballistic missiles were launched against the United States today, they would reach their targets unimpeded and obliterate every last child (and adult) unfortunate enough to be living within their ambit. Such is the nature of the Democratic Party's solicitude for children.

If the American people had had any idea just how vulnerable our country is to missile attack -- and how resolutely Bill Clinton and Al Gore resisted all efforts to correct this weakness -- they would have marched down Pennsylvania Avenue by the tens of thousands and ousted this dirty-handed duo unceremoniously. It wasn't about sex; it was about security, and there's no national issue more important than that, not even the economy. The repudiation of Bill Clinton and Al Gore would have been resounding in last November's election -- if Republicans had hammered away at the unconscionable dereliction of duty of a Commander-in-Chief who kept his own nation completely vulnerable to attack.

The Clinton Administration ignored legislation passed by big majorities in both houses of Congress mandating the deployment of a national missile defense. Clinton dared not veto the authorizing legislation outright, however, so he just announced that he would refrain from executing the clear intent of the law. This willful obstructionism confirmed his commitment to keeping the United States vulnerable to missile attack -- at the very time that he was empowering a tyrannical Chinese regime to launch one against us. The suspicions of a complacent American public should have been aroused by this brazen disregard of American security interests, and the national news media should have fulfilled their watchdog role by asking the questions that cried out for asking: Why would an American President deliberately jeopardize the security of the United States? Why would he refuse to initiate construction of a necessary, feasible, and Congressionally approved missile defense system? What country was he really working for?

Now that Clinton has finally left office and can no longer control the machinery of government in such a way as to prevent all inquiry into his suspicious activities, it seems reasonable to expect some answers to these troubling questions. The issues involved are far too grave to be swept aside in the interest of some vague therapeutic abstraction like "moving on" or "healing." Our prisons are full of thieves and murderers who would have loved to have gotten a pass like that. Instead, they're being held accountable for their crimes, and the knowledge that justice is being done is helping their victims -- and the rest of us -- "move on" and "heal." Sure, let's "move on," let's "heal," but let's do it the right way: with truth triumphant and evil thwarted.